SEEDS OF PROSPERITY - ASU · SEEDS OF PROSPERITY ... Nanotechnology, microscale medicine, virtual...

S E E D S O F P R O S P E R I T Y

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS / COLLEGE OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS

PUBL IC INVESTMENT IN SC IENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

A S t u d y o f t h e E c o n o m i c Po t e n t i a l o f Pr o p o s i t i o n 3 0 1 a t A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

A n d a N e w M o d e l f o r A s s e s s i n g i t s Lo n g - Te r m Va l u e

IN NOVEMBER 2000, ARIZONA VOTERS SAID “YES” TO NEW INVESTMENTS

IN UN IVERS ITY SC IENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH WHEN THEY

APPROVED PROPOSIT ION 301 .

PROPOSIT ION 301 MONIES OFFER THE STATE AN EXTRAORDINARY

OPPORTUNITY TO STRIDE AHEAD IN THE INTERNATIONAL RACE FOR

BRAINPOWER, INNOVATION, AND COMPETIT IVENESS.

B y R o b M e l n i c k , R i c k H e f f e r n o n , N a n c y W e l c h , M o r r i s o n I n s t i t u t e f o r P u b l i c P o l i c y

Copyright ©2003 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy.1

PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT

PAGE 5 >

ASU’S TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH INITIATIVES

CONNECTIONS,ATTENTION AND TALENT

HEADING INTO THE FUTURE

THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS

< PAGE 9

PAGE 17 >

< PAGE 27

PAGE 37 >

< PAGE 41

S E E D S O F P R O S P E R I T Y

PUBL IC INVESTMENT IN SC IENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

A S t u d y o f t h e E c o n o m i c P o t e n t i a l o f P r o p o s i t i o n 3 0 1 a t A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

A n d a N e w M o d e l f o r A s s e s s i n g i t s L o n g - Te r m Va l u e

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nanotechnology, microscale medicine, virtual manufacturing — these

rapidly expanding frontiers are proof positive that Arizona is competing

in an era in which great wealth comes to those who innovate, especially

in science and technology. Arizona’s “traditional” industries — tourism,

construction, and growth — will certainly continue to matter to the state’s

economy, but if we want to win our fair share of “new economy” prosperity

and high-wage jobs, our economic portfolio must be reconfigured. It needs

to feature brave new knowledge industries. This reconfiguration will

require substantial public and private investment policies to seed new

industries, as well as the patience to allow them to mature.

THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY: NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL

Economic development, now and in the future, will be anything but

business as usual. To become more competitive and stay at the top of

the knowledge economy game, Arizona must learn a new set of rules:

• Advances in science and technology will create enormous wealth,

as they have done for the last half century, but changes will happen

faster and faster.

• Innovation has joined natural resources, money, and people as

the fourth critical ingredient for economic growth.

• Knowledge businesses will rely on universities to prepare, attract,

and retain innovators and to develop new scientific products for

commercialization; hence, a region’s economic competitiveness

increasingly will depend on the research strength and quality of

its universities.

AN INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYRESEARCH AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Approval of Proposition 301 by Arizona voters in November 2000

represented a significant step toward a new foundation for the

state’s economic future by providing a long-term funding stream for

science and technology investments. This new sales tax enabled Arizona

to create an economic development strategy appropriate for the

knowledge economy.

For Fiscal Year 2002, Arizona State University used its “301” portion

to complement the university’s existing research base by conducting

projects in six science and technology areas: biosciences/biotechnology,

information science, advanced materials, manufacturing, access and

workforce development, and technology transfer. Each area is linked

to important knowledge economy industries and trends. These projects,

however, represent only the startup phase of ASU’s 301 research.

Currently, the university has entered a consolidation phase that will

integrate first-year research into interdisciplinary “mega-projects.”

Early results from ASU’s $15 million worth of projects have been positive.

However, despite immediate benefits from knowledge gains, investment

in scientific research typically takes decades to yield the full potential

of its economic return. Thus, Arizona business, education, economic

development, and government leaders who were interviewed for this

analysis requested a creative set of metrics to gauge the lasting value of

public investment in science and technology research.

SEEDS OF PROSPERITY: PUBLIC INVESTMENT

IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

Return on invest-

ment in science

and technology

research will

depend on Arizona

becoming more

competitive in

developing and

commercializing

research, more

recognized for

innovation, and

more attractive

to knowledge

workers.

CONNECTIONS, ATTENTION, AND TALENT TO ENHANCE ARIZONA’S COMPETIT IVENESS

Seeds of Prosperity presents a new way of assessing the long-term

economic impact of science and technology research as a supplement

to the traditional annual measures the Arizona Board of Regents will

track. This new paradigm — called the CAT measures — keeps “score”

on science and technology research by means of:

• CONNECTIONS developed between university researchers and

businesses that commercialize research.

• ATTENTION generated by university research, both locally and

nationally, that helps attract investment and talent to the state.

• TALENT that Arizona recruits, retains, and develops because of its

research, thereby providing the state with innovators and workers

fit for the knowledge economy.

A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY FUTURE

ASU’s first-year Proposition 301-funded projects provided numerous

illustrations of how the CAT measures can be applied in the future to

analyze the value of science and technology research. Some examples:

ASU involvement in Project FORCE connected Arizona to 11 universities

worldwide and to major businesses such as Advanced Microelectronics,

Texas Instruments, and National Semiconductor. The Consortium for

Embedded and Inter-Networking Technologies — which includes Intel,

Motorola, and ASU — attracted the attention of the National Science

Foundation. And ASU’s Women’s Health Research Forum attracted

national attention to metro Phoenix’s medical research, connected

academics and businesspeople, and helped develop the state’s research

talent in this field.

For the future, Proposition 301 research activities will likely converge

in even larger, more interdisciplinary collaborations that draw together

research teams from many science and engineering fields. Such teams

are now considered essential for producing the next generations of

science and technology innovation.


Even a few years ago, Arizona’s current commitment to university science

and technology research could only be imagined. But Arizona is not alone

in this type of investment. As every state moves aggressively to reap the

rewards of the knowledge economy, Arizona leaders must remember:

• Public investment in science and technology research is a

marathon, not a sprint.

• Arizona cannot rest on its laurels or claim economic victory after

a few early successes in the knowledge economy — competition

from other states will only increase over time.

• Return on investment in science and technology research will be

a function of whether or not Arizona becomes more competitive

in the development and commercialization of research, more

recognized as a spawning ground for innovation, and more attractive

to knowledge workers.

3

Attention generated by science and technology research in Arizona

will help attract investment and talent to the state.

In November 2000, Arizona voters said “Yes” to new investments in university

science and technology research when they approved Proposition 301, a

0.6 percent increase in state sales tax earmarked primarily for K-12 education

and university research. In doing so, they demonstrated an understanding

of the two most important fundamentals of today’s knowledge economy:

• Research and innovation will drive Arizona’s economy and prosperity.

• The ideas that lead to inventive companies and high-paying

jobs come from creative people.

Since Proposition 301 went into effect, the tenets and realities of the

knowledge economy have been confirmed time and again by examples

both in Arizona and around the globe. Innovation has joined natural

resources, people, and money as the fourth critical ingredient for economic

growth. Therefore, the products and services that are likely to generate the

greatest new wealth and high-wage jobs for our region and state will arise

from advances in, and the convergence of, science and technology.

Arizona, however, will not be able to keep pace with national and global

competition if it merely rests on its past economic laurels. Certainly tourism,

construction, sunshine, and growth will remain important drivers of the state’s

economy for the near term. But to ensure long-term opportunity and prosperity,

Arizona’s portfolio must be reconfigured to feature knowledge industries.

Arizona’s Technology and Research Initiative FundProposition 301’s approval set in motion the most substantial public

investment in Arizona’s economic future since the Central Arizona

Project brought water to the state. For the next 20 years, this measure will

provide the state’s three major universities approximately $45 million

annually. That funding will be dedicated to expanding cutting-edge

research and education in science and technology as a means to foster

sustained economic growth in Arizona. Leveraged with other public

and private funding sources, Proposition 301 monies offer the state an

extraordinary opportunity to stride ahead in the international race for

brainpower, innovation, and competitiveness.

Passage of Proposition 301 led to the creation of the Technology and

Research Initiative Fund (TRIF) as the repository for Proposition 301 sales

taxes designated for universities. This fund is administered by the Arizona

Board of Regents (ABOR) for the purpose of supporting university science

and technology research that will nurture knowledge industries in the

state. Working in conjunction with ABOR, each of the state’s three public

universities — Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and

Northern Arizona University — selected specific research areas and

support functions for its share of 301 funding.

Not Business as Usual

The strategy of using university research as an economic development tool

constitutes a dramatic departure from “business as usual” in Arizona. In

the past, a university’s economic contributions have been measured in

terms of local expenditures on goods and services, and student “output”

— the number and, to a lesser extent, the quality of its graduates. At the

same time, public sector economic development has focused on tax

incentives and the recruitment of companies, not on research investments.

Proposition 301 enhances those other economic development models

with a strategy that is in tune with the basics of the knowledge economy.

This new model recognizes that:

• Universities are knowledge factories. No other organization or

institution in the state exists specifically to generate, teach, and

transfer new knowledge.

PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH:

PROPOSIT ION 301 ’S PROMISE FOR THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

5

6

• Arizona’s knowledge businesses depend on the state’s universitiesfor their future leaders and inventors. Most graduates remain in

Arizona, making state universities the primary source of the state’s

future knowledge workers.

• The quality and the competitiveness of metropolitan regionsincreasingly stem from new economy activities at their universities. Scholars from across the country including Richard

Florida, Michael Porter, and Mary Walshok have shown that highly

educated, innovative workers are attracted to regions that have

excellence in higher education, reputations for abundant commercial

opportunities, and people like themselves — a community of like-

minded “knowledge entrepreneurs.”

The promise of “301” for the state is powerful, and the first-year

accomplishments have been notable as will be shown in the pages that

follow. However, Arizona’s leaders and voters cannot simply take on faith

that the myriad of research and related activities supported by these

dollars will automatically result in the desired economic impacts. The

projects and initiatives must be monitored and evaluated in light of the

way that economic development occurs in the knowledge economy.

Arizona State University and Proposition 301This report covers the startup phase for ASU’s 301-funded endeavors

(Fiscal Year 2001-2002). Currently, ASU has entered a consolidation phase

in which the university is integrating first-year efforts into large-scale

interdisciplinary “mega-projects.” (For more on this consolidation, see

“Heading Into the Future” on page 37.)

To complement its existing expertise in scientific research, ASU proposed

to apply first-year monies from the Technology and Research Initiative

Fund to initiate or strengthen programs in six major areas:

• Biosciences/Biotechnology

• Information Science

• Advanced Materials

• Manufacturing

• Access and Workforce Development

• Technology Transfer

These initiatives were allocated $15.6 million in FY 2002.

The primary purpose of this report is to put the economic contributions ofArizona State University’s TRIF research into context. It does not cover otheruses of Proposition 301 monies at ASU — such as funds allocated for capitalprojects at ASU East and West — nor does it provide a cost-benefit analysisof all 301 dollars allocated to ASU. Instead, this report provides data onFY 2002 results for the first-year initiatives and presents a blueprint for long-termevaluation that augments the Arizona Board of Regents’ oversight process.

From the outset, the Arizona Board of Regents recognized the need to holduniversities accountable for expenditures and results. Before it could receiveTRIF monies, each university had to present a set of goals and outputmeasures for the activities it wanted to fund. Results for these “deliverables”will be collected and reviewed annually by ABOR to track progress.

Some of the ABOR-approved measures describe important aspects ofeconomic impact, such as grants and patents. For example, if a TRIF activityenables a university to win a federal grant, that money will most likely bespent in Arizona. This is a classic example of “importing” wealth or “exporting”product, and is certainly a desirable way to grow the state’s economy. Likewise,the patenting or licensing of a new product or process that results froma 301 research project can also produce an economic development impact.

However, the ABOR measures do not tell the whole story. They primarilycount things rather than assess their value. And, as annual “snapshots,”they are not designed to capture the nuances of the knowledge economyor the long view. But leading economic development practitioners andscholars caution us that creation of wealth in the 21st century will

depend on taking this long view, primarily because prosperity will be based on sustained investment in developing talent, generatingknowledge, and commercializing research. Moreover, experts emphasizethat these factors must “work” and “think” together if they are going toprofoundly affect local and regional economies.

Clearly then, the returns from TRIF activities cannot be analyzed as one would judge the effects of other public spending for economicdevelopment. To measure the value of a tourism promotion, for example,it would be appropriate to count how many people visited Arizona in a year as a result of a certain advertising campaign, and how muchthey spent. But this type of counting would not adequately measure thevalue provided by scientific research in Arizona. Discoveries made todaymay not reach commercial application for years to come, yet their implications could resonate for decades.

The complexity of analyzing the full economic impact of Proposition 301research is clear to many of the state’s leaders. People interviewed for thisevaluation — leading Arizona policymakers, CEOs, media executives, anduniversity officials — acknowledged the need to track ABOR’s accountabilitymeasures, but they also emphasized the importance of supplementingthese conventional measures with new types of assessment tools.

What this means is that evaluating 301-driven economic impacts overthe next two decades will require fresh thinking. The impact of researchon the state’s pool of knowledge workers cannot be determined simplyby tracking university graduation rates. Nor can the value of research bejudged by the number of patents filed every year — commercial adoptionof newly patented products and processes depends on their appeal toentrepreneurs and venture capitalists. Thus, the economic impact ofArizona’s 301 investments will have to be assessed in relation to a varietyof interrelated factors.

As San Diego expert Mary Walshok says, “Economic development in knowledge-driven economies arises out of a confluence of technical,

sociological, economic, and political forces.”1 The report that follows takes allof those forces into account to help Arizona’s leaders and voters understandthe nature and potential economic impact of ASU’s six TRIF initiatives.

Guide for a New JourneyAuthor Douglas Adams’ imaginary Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

steered countless readers through extraordinary worlds and unusual

situations. Because ASU’s real-life, right-now TRIF activities may seem

as incredible as science fiction to many readers, this report provides

a guide to the research and ideas at the heart of the six initiatives.

The report’s next section presents the economic context for each of

ASU’s research initiatives, explaining in lay terms what this science and

technology is about and providing examples of potential commercial

applications. The third section describes each of the six initiatives and

their goals, and reassembles the ABOR data in new categories, displaying

the initiatives side-by-side for better comparison. The report’s fourth section

presents another way of thinking about, and ultimately measuring, the

economic value of TRIF research in consideration of how the knowledge

economy works. It also provides several examples from ASU to help

illustrate how research creates products, affects people, and relates to

the world beyond the university. And the fifth section of the report

plots the “trajectory” of ASU’s six initiatives to let Arizonans know how

each research area is expected to develop over time.

It may seem extravagant to refer to the Proposition 301 initiatives as a

journey into new worlds, but it is accurate. By providing an opportunity

for the state’s best scientists and students to work together on

tomorrow’s products — and supplying them with new resources, clear

directives, and enlightened oversight — Arizona is on a path that a few

years ago could only be imagined. From such a path, the next transforming

technology or visionary business leader could emerge in Arizona.

With that prospect a real possibility, no journey is likely to be more

important for this state.7

Electrical engineering professor Michael Kozicki and research

scientist Maria Mitkova show a new chip invented at ASU

and commercialized by Axon Technologies. This low-power,

high-capacity memory chip has the potential to improve cell

phones, digital cameras, and other portable electronics.

ASU’s six TRIF initiatives do not stand alone. Four of the initiatives —Biosciences/Biotechnology, Information Science, Advanced Materials, andManufacturing — carve out promising niches in much larger research anddevelopment ventures. Two others — Access and Workforce Development,and Technology Transfer — provide support functions for science andtechnology research. To put each of the projects in perspective, the following six accounts briefly describe the economic context forProposition 301-sponsored activities in bioindustry, informationtechnology, nanotechnology, modern manufacturing, workforcedevelopment, and university technology transfer.

BIOINDUSTRY: PRODUCTS AND POTENTIAL

The companies that comprise bioindustry utilize breakthroughs from bio-science research and transform them into commercially viable products,such as cancer fighting drugs, oil-devouring microbes, or brain-scanningimagers. Often referred to as biotech, life sciences, or simply “bio,” this industryencompasses a broad array of disciplines that increasingly have becomeinterrelated. For example, it includes aspects of biology, chemistry, medicine,and agriculture, among others. Definitions of the current categories andterms used to describe bio activities remain elastic as the industry continuesto expand at a brisk pace, but most research and product developmentoccur within two main arenas: 1) biotechnology and life sciences, and 2)medical devices and other biotech-related advanced equipment.

Products of Biotechnology and Life SciencesResearch in biotechnology and life sciences focuses on using biologicalmolecules, genetic material, and manipulated cells to produce new typesof products for medicine, agriculture, and an expanding number ofdiverse industries such as forensics, environmental remediation, andbiomanufacturing. Some examples of the many products in use or underdevelopment include:

• Diagnostics, such as genetic coding, that will customize cancertreatments for individual patients.

• Drugs and vaccines to treat infectious diseases such as AIDS,hepatitis, anthrax, and cholera.

• Genetically altered plants and animals that can grow faster, resistdiseases, provide more nutrition, or produce drugs and vaccines to treat human maladies.

• Enzymes, biological agents, and cultured microorganisms that neutralize hazardous waste, manufacture pharmaceuticals, or refinevaluable minerals from low-grade ores and waste materials.

• Tissues that can be grown to create replacement blood vessels,bones, nerve cells, skin, and other organs.

Types of Medical Devices and Advanced Biotech-Related EquipmentMedical devices include instruments, machines, implants, and otherequipment used to diagnose or treat disease, loss of function, and otherconditions. Advanced biotech-related equipment consists primarily ofcomputerized laboratory devices used by biotech researchers. Amongthe many devices and equipment in use or under development are:

• Implantable devices such as cardiac pacemakers, mechanical hearts,and cochlear or ocular implants.

• Microscale diagnostic devices and probes that can run multipletests from a pinprick of blood.

• Implantable sensors and telemetry, such as nanoscale “labs on achip” or pill-sized video cameras that can be swallowed, implanted,or injected into the blood stream for minimally invasive monitoringof chronic conditions such as heart disease, epilepsy, and diabetes.

• Programmable devices on or in the body that can respond to biosensorsor other commands to deliver precise amounts of drugs, stimulateoptic or auditory nerves, or control muscles and artificial limbs.

• Laboratory apparatus such as automated DNA sequencers, cellsorters, and molecule synthesizers.

THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT: ASU’S RESEARCH IN PERSPECTIVE

9

10

The Potential of BioindustryThe United States is considered a world leader in bioscience products and,

accordingly, its bioindustry cluster has grown rapidly. Recent reports have

concluded that the U.S. biotechnology sector alone more than doubled in

size from 1993 to 1999. As of 2001, the industry consisted of nearly 2,000

companies that produced $39 billion in revenues and directly employed

157,000 people. The momentum of bioindustry is clearly building.

Biomedical research investment has increased sevenfold since 1985 and

patents have increased tenfold. With a strong aging trend evident among

the U.S. population, and a concomitant increase in demand for health

care and related products, the industry’s growth is likely to continue for

the foreseeable future.

Research and development has always been key to driving innovation

in bioindustry due to the unusually close linkages that exist between

university-based research and private sector commercialization of new

products. By far the greatest amount of funding for bioresearch comes

from federal government sources — particularly the National Institutes

of Health (NIH), which has been slated to receive $27 billion for FY 2003,

a 15.7 percent increase over FY 2002. Among the areas targeted for

increases in NIH research funding are bioterrorism, cancer, diabetes,

allergy and infectious diseases, minority health, Parkinson’s disease,

and Alzheimer’s disease.

Federal research funding typically flows to regions that already boast

strong research talent, infrastructure, and facilities. Higher local investment,

therefore, tends to lead to higher growth in federal funding. Historically,

the Greater Phoenix area has made a large investment in clinical facilities

related to health care, but a relatively small investment in the type of

research facilities that attract federal grants. Consequently, the Greater

Phoenix area receives a much lower level of federal research funding for

bio than would be expected for its size — considerably less, for example,

than metropolitan Boston or Minneapolis. ■

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:SIGNIF ICANCE TO THE NEW ECONOMY

Over the last decade, the U.S. economy has experienced a profoundtransformation in the way business is transacted — moving, for example,from handwritten factory orders to intelligent digital supply networks.At the heart of this transformation has been the explosive growth ofinformation technology (IT ), which has permeated almost every facet of daily life. The rise of IT has changed how people communicate witheach other, conduct research, design new products, engage in commerce,and teach the next generation. In coming decades, information technologyis likely to produce an even greater impact on the economy as advancesand new discoveries continue to accelerate change.

IT Products and ProcessesInformation technology encompasses the development and managementof computer hardware, computer software, and related services. The primary purpose of IT is to turn massive volumes of data into useful,accessible information. Today, IT is most prominently embodied by thenearly ubiquitous personal computers found in homes, offices, and shirtpockets across the country, as well as by the application software thatallows computer users to create and work with word processing documents,spreadsheets, and graphics files.

Information technology, however, also includes other fields. Notableamong these is embedded technology, the design of tiny, low-powercomputers-on-a-chip that, along with their dedicated software, makejust about every new appliance and electronic device “smart.” Embeddedcomputers now run cellular telephones, refrigerators, digital cameras,toasters, GPS units, and air conditioners, to name a few. New automobilescontain up to 35 embedded computers.

Bioinformatics forms yet another branch of information technology. Ithas developed at the nexus of computer science and biology. Thisrapidly growing field is the result of recent trends in biotechnology —such as the study of the human genome — that are beginning togenerate vast amounts of data for describing complex organisms and

their processes. The purpose of bioinformatics is to develop the newtools necessary for archiving and annotating this data so that it can be accessible and meaningful to scientists.

Due to the effects of “digital convergence,” information technology hasalso become increasingly linked with telecommunications. One exampleof digital convergence is the routine use of telecom networks — forexample, cable, telephone, and wireless — to connect IT products suchas personal computers and servers via the Internet. This cross of differenttechnologies has recently become one of the main consumer interestsdriving sales for both sectors. It is leading to a new generation of hand-held devices with multiple functions built in that will seamlessly bridgethe divide between IT and telecom by placing telephone calls, surfingthe Internet, fixing a GPS reading, recording digital images, sending e-mail,and maintaining a personal calendar. The result is that recent economicdescriptions have begun to refer to IT and telecom as the “informationand communications technology” industry, or ICT.

Economic ImpactsWhether categorized as IT or ICT, this industry plays a major role in boththe world and domestic economy. The U.S. currently ranks first in the worldfor producing information and communications technology productsand services, and is also one of the world leaders for spending on ICTwith a total of approximately $762 billion in 1999 — about 35 percentof the global market. Among all industry sectors, financial services is thelargest consumer of information technology ($70 billion in 1999) followedby communications services, manufacturing, wholesale, and businessservices. IT also ranks as the largest export sector in the U.S., with a 29percent share of the market.

IT has had a powerful impact on U.S. job and economic growth in the lastdecade. While comprising only 8 percent of the total economy, the IT sectoraccounted for almost 30 percent of real growth in the country’s GDP from1994 to 2000. Furthermore, several studies show that IT was responsiblefor half to three-quarters of the acceleration in productivity growth betweenthe early 1990s and the late 1990s. All told, approximately 10 millionpeople in the U.S. are employed in IT jobs, many of them working for

companies engaged in business outside the IT industry, such as financialservices and manufacturing. In Arizona, IT accounted for approximately4,000 business establishments in 1999 that directly employed over 100,000workers. Adding in all IT-related jobs at non-IT businesses, the number ofArizona IT workers would easily exceed 150,000. ■

ADVANCED MATERIALS:THE PROMISE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY

The latest big trend in materials research is to think small — very, very small.In this tiny world, red blood cells loom as large as stadiums and individualcarbon atoms seem to be the size of baseballs. That is the realm of nanotechnology, a world where things are measured in billionths of a meter— a nanometer — and where the main building blocks of advanced materialsare small collections of atoms. This will be the future: a world of “small tech.”

Working directly with individual atoms is a relatively new skill for humans,but it is an age-old “technology” for nature. Over billions of years, naturehas employed enzymes and catalysts to organize different kinds of atomsinto organic molecules and other complex microscopic structures thatmake life possible. These natural products can have impressive capabilities,such as the power to harvest solar energy, convert minerals and waterinto living cells, and store massive amounts of memory in both nervecells and DNA proteins.

Scientists, however, have only recently devised tools that allow them tosee the surfaces of atoms and manipulate them directly. This has occurreddue to significant advances in electron microscopy and scanning probesover the last two decades. As nanotech tools become ever more preciseand powerful in the future, scientists expect to develop atomic-levelprocesses that will fundamentally change the way advanced materials arecreated, affecting everything from medicine to aerospace to computing.Already, a nanoscale “molecular” computer circuit has been demonstratedthat is two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the most sophisticatedcomputer chips currently in production. And while this chip remainsinvisible to the naked eye, it nevertheless was hailed as the biggestbreakthrough of the year for 2001 by the prestigious journal Science.

11

12

Why Nanotechnology?Using the processes of nanotechnology, basic industrial production isexpected to veer dramatically from the course of the past. Raw materialswill come from the atoms of abundant substances such as carbon, hydrogen,or silicon. These atoms will be manipulated into precise configurationsto create new materials that exhibit exactly the right properties for eachapplication. Carbon atoms, for example, could be bonded in a number ofdifferent geometries that create a fiber, a tube, a molecular coating, or awire, all with the superior strength-to-weight ratio of diamonds. Moreover,this material processing will not require smokestacks, power-hungryindustrial machinery, or intensive human labor, but instead may beaccomplished either by “growing” new structures through some combinationof chemical catalysts and synthetic enzymes, or by building themthrough new techniques based on self-assembly of nanoscale materialsinto useful predetermined designs. In theory, nanotechnology will allowpeople to fabricate almost any type of material or product allowableunder the laws of physics.

Products Now and for the FutureThe potential impact of nanotechnology processes and products isexpected to be far-reaching, affecting nearly every conceivable electroniccomponent, energy source, agricultural product, medical device,pharmaceutical, and material used in manufacturing. Already, a numberof nanomaterial-enhanced products are on the market and growing inuse. Nanomaterials woven into fabrics give clothing resistance to stains.Nanopowders of titanium dioxide help sunscreens invisibly reflect ultraviolet light. Nanocrystals of silver embedded in bandages kill bacteriaand prevent infection. Nanoparticles of clay added to plastic make it possiblefor brewing companies to bottle beer in plastic containers. And nanopigmentsused in computer printers produce brighter images on paper.

In addition to existing products, scientists envision a vast number ofworld-changing devices and materials for the future. Among them:

• Microscopic machines that can be implanted in the body torestore sight, hunt down cancer cells, or release drugs to treat life-threatening diseases.

• Catalytic filtration systems that will remove and neutralize any toxins contaminating water and air.

• Solar cells as cheap as wrapping paper that will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

• Super-conducting cables that will transmit energy with near-zero losses.

• Microscopic memory storage devices that can store millions of gigabytes of data.

• Diamond-fiber airplane hulls impregnated with nano-sensors and micro-actuators that will make it possible to produce aBoeing 747-size airplane at one-fiftieth the weight and with featuressuch as the ability to maneuver without flaps, and the capacity todetect, report, and even “heal” structural defects.

Economic ProspectsMany public and private entities see vast potential in the enterprisesthat could spin off from nanotechnology research. Japan and Europehave been investing heavily in nanotech and its potential applicationsin microscale systems for several years in order to position themselvesfor the global economy of the 21st century. In the U.S., federal fundingfor nanotech research has been rising of late, from $116 million in 1997to over $600 million in 2002 — a fivefold increase. Most of the researchactivity typically clusters around strong research institutions and theregion’s related private sector companies. Small Times magazine recentlyranked the top six regions for nanotech and microtech R&D as SiliconValley, Southern California, Boston, New York-New Jersey area, Dallas-Houston-Austin, and Chicago. Other places to watch according to themagazine were Albuquerque, Michigan, New York state, Ohio, NorthCarolina, and Washington.

Currently, nanotech businesses produce an estimated $45.5 billion inannual sales, according to an industry group. This group also predictssales to reach $700 billion by 2008. A National Science Foundation study,meanwhile, forecasts the nanotech market to reach $1 trillion by 2015. ■

MODERN MANUFACTURING:IMPACT ON U.S . ECONOMIC GROWTH

During the 1990s, the U.S. enjoyed unprecedented economic growth andprosperity. A primary force behind that growth was America’s retooled andtechnology-wise manufacturing industry, which grew rapidly during thatperiod. Overall, manufacturing accounted for the largest portion of GDPgrowth from 1992 to 1997 — contributing a 29 percent share comparedto 19 percent and 16 percent respectively for services and retail, the nextclosest sectors. Manufacturing also posted substantial productivity gainsduring the late 1990s — more than twice the gains for all other nonfarmindustries. In addition, manufacturing continues to rank as one of thecountry’s largest employers and producers, with 20 million workers anda total contribution of $1.5 trillion annually to GDP.

Components of ManufacturingManufacturing is a broadly diversified industry comprised of two maincategories: 1) “durable goods,” such as lumber products, electronicequipment, and motor vehicles, and 2) “nondurable goods,” such as foodproducts, textiles, and chemicals. While the majority of businesses involvedin manufacturing appear to be “old economy” in nature, manufacturersas a group actually spend more on cutting-edge information technologyand Internet capabilities than any other industry sector. This technologybent has allowed them in recent years to become more productive andcompetitive in the global market.

One measure of manufacturing’s technology emphasis is its commitmentto research and development (R&D). Currently, manufacturing suppliesmore than 70 percent of all private R&D dollars in the country, and morethan half of all R&D spending inclusive of government sources. The fruitsof that research often spill over into other areas of the economy, such thatmanufacturing acts as the de facto provider of new technology for manysectors, particularly retail, services, government, and finance. For example,the technology behind banking’s ATM machines was originally developedfor use in equipment on the factory floor. In addition, manufacturing’screation of new materials, chemicals, and electronic sensors often

translates into new products and applications for health care facilities,public utilities, motion picture producers, government offices, and manyothers, including private households. Furthermore, American high techmanufacturers — such as Intel, Motorola, and IBM — directly producethe multitude of advanced tools and products that are currently fuelingthe information age and driving continued long-term economic growth.

Trends in Modern ManufacturingThe look of a modern manufacturing firm has changed radically in the lastdecade. On the leading edge of this corporate makeover are companieslike Cisco Systems, the top manufacturer of components and systems forthe Internet. With a relatively small employee base and no factories in itsinventory, Cisco relies on a “virtual” manufacturing division of independent,Internet-connected partners — a total of 37 different entities in 2000.These strategic partners coordinate with Cisco to make all of the company’scomponents and also to complete the majority of final assembly work.The result is that more than half of Cisco’s product line ships directly tothe customer having never been touched or inspected by a Cisco employee.

Even major old economy manufacturers have taken up new strategiessimilar to Cisco’s. Increasingly, they are employing a network of “horizontally integrated” suppliers (i.e., independent manufacturing partners) rather than maintaining a “vertically integrated” supply chainconsisting only of wholly-owned subsidiaries. The difference is thathorizontal integration promises to reduce risk and streamline employmentfor the lead manufacturer, while allowing each partner in the supply chainto concentrate on its core competencies. All this can save money. Buthidden “interoperability costs” — the price in time and money for figuringout how to securely transmit design specifications, inventory data, andother essential information across a multitude of proprietary computersystems at independent supply partners — can take a big bite out of thissavings. A 1999 study, for example, calculated interoperability costs in theU.S. auto industry to be in excess of $1 billion annually. Because of thecross-cutting nature of this problem, many analysts argue that a single,standardized technology infrastructure is needed that can securely transmitsensitive data at all levels of the supply chain across all industries.

13

14

Factory and supply network management has changed dramatically in theinformation age. Advances in telecommunications and networking nowallow corporate executives sitting at their computers at corporate head-quarters to look at the real-time flow of raw materials and rate of factoryproduction occurring at any number of subsidiary or partner installationshalf a world away. With good information and the right tools for decision-making, these executives should be able to fine tune manufacturing supplies and outputs to closely match incoming orders. In this way theycould achieve “just in time” delivery of products to customers, thereby eliminating inventory costs and reducing risk that products will becomeobsolete before they are sold. This is a major consideration. If such strategieshad been perfected in 2001, the semiconductor industry might not havehad to write off an estimated $18 billion in unwanted inventory. ■

WORKFORCE: TRENDS FOR THE NEW ECONOMY

The nature of work in America has undergone a dramatic change in thelast two decades. With both the Internet and information technology (IT)driving global business, firms across the spectrum have turned to innovativeuses of digital technology to stay competitive. In this economic climate,most of industry’s better-paid workers are now assumed to be computerliterate, whether they are engaged in traditional high tech jobs in engineering, science, or computers, or whether they are involved in non-IT fields such as law, education, or health care. In the future, nearly allcollege graduates will need to possess some IT skills in order to functionin their chosen careers. Making sure that current and future workers areup-to-date on their skills is one of the missions of public universities.

Forecasts for GrowthThe U.S. civilian labor force is projected to grow by 17 million jobs in thefirst decade of the 21st century, reaching a total of 158 million in 2010.While certain low-skill, low-pay sectors are expected to hold large sharesof overall employment, the fastest growing occupations will be those thatdemand greater skills and education — and also tend to be among themost high-paying. Job categories that usually involve a college degree,for example, are projected to account for 42 percent of new job growth

between 2000 and 2010, while professional occupations overall areexpected to add the most new jobs to the economy — about 7 million.In Arizona, a similar trend is anticipated. Among those occupations forecastto experience rapid growth for the period 1998 to 2008, the top four arecomputer-related: computer scientists, computer support specialists,computer engineers, and systems analysts. Moreover, the top payingoccupations in Arizona — such as physicians, lawyers, engineers, and topexecutives — all increasingly need IT skills to perform their functions.

IT Skills Required Throughout the EconomyHigh tech firms currently have the greatest concentration of formallytrained IT personnel (e.g., computer scientists and systems analysts). Thehighest overall demand for these workers, however, comes from non-ITfirms with fewer than 100 employees — the same small firms that alsoreport the most difficulty in finding qualified, skilled candidates to filltheir positions. According to employers of IT workers, the three mostimportant skills they look for in new employees are knowledge relevantto the position, hands-on experience, and good nontechnical skills suchas communication, problem-solving, analysis, and the ability to learnquickly. In many cases, a strong business background is as important asstrong technical skill.

Looking forward, most observers agree that solid IT literacy will be arequirement for almost every profession. Already this is coming true:most office workers and professionals interact with computers on a dailybasis, police officers routinely carry laptop computers and other digitalequipment in their patrol vehicles, medical technicians work with sophis-ticated computer imaging systems and other computer-based diagnostics,warehouse workers keep detailed digital databases on computer to tracksupplies and shipments, and many factory workers operate digitallycontrolled tools and testing equipment. These are just to name a few.

Moreover, not all IT jobs — such as help desk positions and web sitemaintenance — are currently filled by workers who have formal IT education. In many companies it is common for these positions to behandled by secretaries and clerical staff who have shown an aptitude

for computers or application software and have demonstrated goodcommunication skills. Even in most person-to-person “helping” professions— such as health care, social work, and counseling — computers and the Internet are frequently employed to document case work, researchproblems and treatment, and communicate with colleagues. Thus, thetechnical sophistication of the American workforce is an economy-widecompetitiveness issue.

It is also a career-long issue. Most workers of the future will need to retrainand reposition themselves for new career tracks several times during theirlives. To accomplish this they will need access to a variety of college degreeand non-degree programs that feature cutting-edge information, convenientmodes of delivery, and expedient time to completion of coursework. ■

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:THE VALUE OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

World War II’s Manhattan Project demonstrated the national importanceof universities in providing science and engineering expertise. Since thattime, federal funding has played an integral role in supporting basic researchat many of the country’s top universities. This funding has spawned manynew innovations and scholarly papers through the years, but until the1980s relatively few research results were developed commercially. Twomain reasons account for this lack of technology transfer. First, businessesviewed the discoveries from basic research as too “early stage” and riskyto develop on their own; second, research universities were discouragedfrom developing these discoveries themselves because existing federaland state laws prevented them from profiting on new inventions thatevolved out of federally funded research.

Passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 eliminated major federal impedimentsto technology transfer. It allowed universities to file and retain patent rights totheir inventions, enter into exclusive licensing agreements with businesses,and collaborate with industry to promote commercialization of universityinnovations. As a result, patents issued to U.S. universities jumped fromfewer than 250 per year prior to Bayh-Dole to more than 3,200 in FY 2000.

Currently, most federal research dollars for universities flow through suchagencies as the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health,NASA, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, andthe Department of Agriculture. Other sources of sponsored universityresearch include state and local governments, private industry, nonprofitorganizations, and individuals. For FY 2000, more than $25 billion wereallocated to sponsored research at U.S. universities, according to theAssociation of University Technology Managers (AUTM).

Tech Transfer ActivityMore than 200 universities in the United States currently engage in theformal promotion of technology transfer. They do so for a number ofreasons, including to:

• Expedite development of new innovations for the public good

• Reward, retain, and recruit faculty

• Develop closer ties with industry

• Generate income for the university

• Promote economic growth

Technology transfer activity and revenues tend to rise as the level ofsponsored research rises. According to recent surveys, the range ofsponsored research funding varies widely across the U.S., from $2.1 billion for the combined University of California system down to $1.8million for the University of Northern Iowa. For 2000, Arizona StateUniversity received $67 million in sponsored research funding, whichranked it 96th out of 142 reporting universities.

One of the main goals of tech transfer offices at public universities is tolink technology transfer activities with local and state economic develop-ment efforts. Overall, technology transfer annually accounts for more than$40 billion in economic activity that supports an estimated 280,000 jobsin the U.S. and Canada. One university alone — MIT — holds more than1,000 U.S. patents, which generated over $30 million in licensing revenuesfor FY 2000. MIT also spun off 31 new startup companies in FY 2000. ■

15

ASU student Minerva Romero is a senior studying biology and

physiology. She expects to pursue a career as a doctor after graduation.

The Arizona Board of Regents approved six distinct initiatives for Arizona State University — Biosciences/Biotechnology, InformationScience, Advanced Materials, Manufacturing, Access and WorkforceDevelopment, and Technology Transfer. These six comprise the vastmajority of Proposition 301 funding for the university, and they are thesole subject of this analysis.

Each initiative was launched during FY 2002, which began July 1, 2001and ended June 30, 2002. Two sets of tables on the following pagesdescribe the initiatives and their results during FY 2002:

• Starting Points presents the description, goals, and monetary

allocation for each initiative. These starting points are particularly

important because they were used to track whether the ABOR-

approved first-year outcomes were achieved, and also to develop

an evaluation framework for future years.

• Steps Ahead shows the major results and accomplishments during

the first year of the two-decade-long journey. These are summarized

under five headings: new hires, new money, new ventures, new

programs, and new skills.

ASU’S TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH INIT IATIVES:

STARTING POINTS AND STEPS AHEAD

17

ASU’s six

major program

areas under

Proposition 301:

Biosciences/

Biotechnology

Information

Science

Advanced

Materials

Manufacturing

Access &

Workforce

Development

Technology

Transfer

18

STARTING POINTS

Each initiative embarked with specific goals and objectives that guided their activities, results, and accomplishments.Descriptions of each initiative and their starting points are summarized in the following two tables.

2002 DESCRIPTION

ASU will expand its interests inintegrative biomedical researchwith basic and applied researchin five thematic areas: medicalbioengineering, pharmaceuticalsand nutraceuticals, stress anddisease prevention, genomicsand genomic medicine, andhealth policy and public health.

This initiative will link 301-funded projects and otherresearch to develop a biomedicalresearch program with theArizona Biomedical Institute(AzBio) as its centerpiece.AzBio expects to help makemetropolitan Phoenix competitive in the biotechnology industry.

ASU will use basic, interdisci-plinary, and applied research aswell as workforce developmentto connect with the public andprivate sectors for advances in embedded and networkedsystems, knowledge systems,wireless technologies, and multimedia systems. This initiative also will support theinformation technology needsof other ASU initiatives.

Fundamental knowledge ininformation technology andleading-edge “embedded”systems and microcomputerswill make many types of devices“smarter.”Research on knowledgenetworks, wireless connectivity,multimedia, and bioinformaticswill result in new products andstimulate formation of newcompanies, attract new industries, and retain andexpand established firms.

ASU will extend its participationin nanotechnology research foradvances in microscale andnanoscale systems by integratingphysical, molecular, materials,and biological sciences withengineering.

Interdisciplinary research will produce revolutionarynanoengineered devices including many types of sensors, semiconductors,and memory devices.

Linkages will be made with private firms for research and,ultimately, commercialization of new applications in industriessuch as health care, threatdetection, transportation,processing, and manufacturing.

ASU will enhance its capacity for manufacturing research inthe semiconductor field andother industries by working withacademic and industry partnersto develop a research agenda for high tech manufacturingsupply networks.

Research on supply networkswill enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of Arizona’smany existing high technologymanufacturers, especially insemiconductors and relatedcomponents. Improvements are anticipated in capacity,production speed, and profitability of private sector manufacturers and their supply networks.

ASU will help ensure that its students and all Arizonanshave skills to prosper in andenhance the state’s knowledgeeconomy. Access and WorkforceDevelopment seeks to extendtech skills among students in alldisciplines, increase the numberof teachers and learners inmath, science, and technologyfields, and raise retention andgraduation rates.

Projects include infusing tech-nology across the curriculum,enhancing ASU’s e-learning anddistance education programs,extending pre-service and in-service work with secondarymath and science teachers,supporting an applied computingdegree, and partnering with private sector firms to develop amicroelectronics “teaching factory.”

ASU will further its tech transferprogram through technologymarketing, licensing, and business development and planning. This initiative will integrate technology transfer with local economicdevelopment.

The initiative will increase thespeed with which ASU can market new developments in science and technology,including 301-funded researchand other research fromthroughout the university.Activities cover patent licensing,liaison to entrepreneurs,business development, and integration of tech transfer with the full range of publiceconomic development efforts.

BIOSCIENCES/BIOTECHNOLOGY

Allocated FY02: $6,876,400Spent FY02: $3,406,400*

INFORMATION SCIENCE


ADVANCED MATERIALS


MANUFACTURING

Allocated FY02: $479,200Spent FY02: $133,200*

ACCESS & WORKFORCEDEVELOPMENT


TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Allocated FY02: $500,000Spent FY02: $335,700*

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 2003.

Data: Arizona State University report: Prop 301/Technology & Research Initiative Fund – FY 2002 Results, July 2002.

* Due to the startup status of the six initiatives, not all allocated funding was spent by the end of FY 2002. The residual remained as a carry-forward, consistent with ABOR policy.

19

Advance breakthroughs in biomedicine and target high priority biomedical specialtieswith significant promise for future development.

Strengthen the Arizona bio industry.

Focus research in areas with long-term collaborative potentialin current and emerging priorityareas for the National Institutes of Health, National ScienceFoundation, other federal agencies,and possible research partners.

Combine research efforts between departments andcolleges at ASU and the outsidemedical community.

Establish and strengthen partnerships with institutions in the Phoenix area throughshared facilities and joint faculty appointments.

Develop state-of-the-art laboratory facilities through newequipment and multidisciplinarycore facilities.

Identify and develop technologytransfer opportunities for allmajor biosciences/ biotechnologyprograms.

Recruit and hire faculty in areastargeted by AzBio.

Equip ASU to partner with technology users in Arizona,including the computer hardware,software, and IT industries.

Establish ASU as a partner in leading-edge research by creatingcollaborative partnerships withtechnology companies.

Expand the supply of graduatesqualified to work in Arizona’s computing industries by providingopportunities for students tointeract with employers andengage in research and leadershipdevelopment activities.

Enhance the value of undergraduateand graduate programs for thesoftware, information science,knowledge systems, and e-commerce industries.

Provide internationally recognizedresearch to attract a larger proportion of computer hardware,software, and network technologyR&D to Arizona.

Attract nationally competitiveresearch faculty for embeddedsystems, bioinformatics, andknowledge systems.

Establish interdisciplinary facultyresearch teams where ASUstrengths align with nationalneeds and research agendas.

Attract $2 million in externalfunding.

Establish 20 student internships in embedded tech and software.

Develop and pilot a high schoolsoftware engineering course withat least 25 students.

Expand external funding in nanotechnology and widebandgap semiconductors.

Develop new nanosystems forhigh value-added applications andtransfer to the commercial sector.

Engage science and engineeringstudents in nanotechnology andmaterials research.

Provide state-of-the-art equipment and upgrades forinterdisciplinary use.

Acquire staff for joint use facilities.

Attract $3 million in externalfunds for specific initiative areas.

Bring in 10 new graduate students.

Provide 12 undergraduates withresearch experience.

Develop 3 new external partnerships.

Hire at least 1 interdisciplinaryfaculty member.

Enhance interdisciplinary collaborative research betweendepartments and across colleges.

Submit major proposal to theNational Science Foundation for research in semiconductormanufacturing operations.

Create research agenda for high technology manufacturingsupply networks.

Identify and generate externalresearch funds.

Assess needs in the manufacturingcurricula for undergraduates and graduates.

Establish 10 undergraduate student internships in high technology firms.

Establish a test bed for a laboratory in high technologymanufacturing supply research.

Strengthen technology support for undergraduate and graduateinstruction.

Conduct faculty and support staff searches.

Fund classrooms and laboratoriesto support technology-enhancedinstruction.

Identify new e-learning programsto be developed.

Develop strategies for improvedrecruitment, training, and retentionof secondary school math and science teachers.

Host a conference for college anduniversity faculty responsible forscience, math, engineering, andtechnology disciplines.

Support development of anapplied computing B.S. programat ASU West.

Partner with Intel and Motorolaon a microelectronics teachingfactory at ASU East.

Encourage more invention disclosures among ASUresearchers.

Increase evaluation of discoveriesfor technical viability and commercial potential.

Invest in selected inventions with commercial potential.

Assist ASU start-up companieswith business plans.

Increase awareness amongArizona’s private sector of investment and technology transfer opportunities at ASU.

Create a campus environment that fosters entrepreneurship.

Employ a team of consultants to evaluate and assess ASU technologies and help take them to market.

Fund “proof of concept” grants and develop early-stage university technologies.

Promote technology marketingefforts through an “electronicforum.”

Increase business developmentservices to ASU inventors.

Increase outreach to the businessand economic development communities.


INFORMATION SCIENCE ADVANCED MATERIALS MANUFACTURING ACCESS & WORKFORCEDEVELOPMENT

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

2002 MAJOR GOALS



20

1 faculty in bioengineering.

2 faculty in nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals.

2 faculty in computer science/embedded systems.

1 faculty in information systems/knowledge systems.

1 faculty in bioinformatics.

1 faculty in computationalmaterials.

2 process engineers for Center for Solid State Electronics Research.

1 support staff for Center for Solid State Science.

1 senior research associate for research support.

6 faculty in nursing, education,law, engineering/fine arts,English, and languages and literature to further teachingtech skills in all disciplines.

1 director of training operationsfor ASU East microelectronicsteaching factory.

2 info-tech specialists in instructional support.

2 info-tech specialists in extended education.

1 info-tech specialist in data analysis.

1 info-tech specialist in Center for Learning andTeaching Excellence.

N/A



TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

STEPS AHEAD: OVERVIEW OF FY 2002 RESULTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. From hiring faculty members and research staff to updating equipment and sponsoring conferences to conducting research and winning grants, the six TRIF initiatives achieved most of their objectives and took many steps toward building the foundation on which future research and economic development will be based.

New Hires — Initiative leaders searched for and selected the faculty, researchers, and support staff needed to carry out their projects. These peoplealso collaborated with professionals in the community and at ASU, prompted future developments, and supervised or supported graduate andundergraduate students.



NEW HIRES

21

$4.7 million received in newfederal and industry awards,contracts, and donations.

56% increase shown in totalvalue of ASU grant proposalswritten in biosciences — to $78 million.

$2.1 million received, including$1 million from Motorola and Intel for Consortium forEmbedded and Inter-NetworkingTechnologies; $715,000 in NSF funds to match ASUresearch seed funds, curriculum development, and internships;$300,000 industry funding forConnection One; $63,000 fromIntel for Center for AdvancingBusiness Through InformationTechnology.

$7.26 million received in federaland industry awards, includingworkforce development and NSFIntegrative Graduate Educationand Research Traineeship.

Over $550,000 awarded in new external funds, including$150,000 from Intel, $108,000from Semiconductor ResearchCorporation, and $300,000 fromNational Science Foundation for studies of semiconductorsupply networks.

N/A $472,000 generated for ASUfrom value of all products andstartups campus-wide.



TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

New Money — TRIF dollars attracted new funds to ASU and sharpened the focus of some ongoing efforts. For example, some initiatives leveragedTRIF money, adding more “external” dollars to university research efforts. Others redirected existing funds to initiative research. This category presents the total money generated by each initiative and provides examples of the new funds’ sources and purposes.



NEW MONEY

22

Established partnership withU.S. Veterans Administrationand National Institute ofDiabetes and Digestive andKidney Diseases for new research.

Established partnerships for collaborative research withMayo Clinic, Sunhealth,Barrow Neurological Institute,Scottsdale Healthcare,Bannerhealth, Arizona HealthSciences Dental School,Advanced Bionics, Medtronics,CreaAgri, and Intel.

Helped establish consortiumthat attracted TGen to Phoenix.

Signed agreements for jointprojects with other TRIF initiatives, including InformationScience and Advanced Materials.

Developed College of BusinessCenter for Advancing Businessthrough Information Technology.

Established Consortium forEmbedded and InternetworkingTechnologies with Motorola and Intel.

Developed Connection One,a consortium of 6 firms and ASU for wireless technologiesresearch.

Signed agreement with SandiaNational Labs for participationin 3 interdisciplinary grants,2 graduate fellowships, and 6 research projects.

Developed National ScienceFoundation IndustrialPartnership with Motorola.

Subcontracted with LockheedMartin on grant from DefenseAdvanced Research ProjectAgency.

Formed SJT Micropower, Inc. ,a new startup.

Expanded projects to modelsemiconductor manufacturingsupply networks.

N/A 5 new products entered market.

3 startup companies formed.

97 inventions disclosed.

108 patent applications made.

11 patents acquired.

9 licenses or options for industryadoption signed.

Contracted for tech commercialization assistance.

Contracted with High Tech MBA Partnership with W. P. Carey School of Business.

Contracted with Master’sConsulting Group.

Formed alliances with The Indus Entrepreneur and ArizonaVenture Capital Conference.

Joined International InnovationInitiative, an academic consortium to bundle relatedtechnologies for marketplace.

Contracted with Patent andLicensing Exchange for onlinemarketing and licensing services.



TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER**



** Invention disclosures, patent applications, patents, and startup companies for all initiatives are reported under Technology Transfer.

New Ventures — New partnerships among ASU departments and between ASU and public and private sector entities began in the past year.Various research consortia, businesses, and alliances also resulted from the initiatives’ activities.

NEW VENTURES

Upgraded lab facilities for the Health Assessment CoreFacility to provide more research options andimprove competitiveness for national grants.

Tested software engineeringcurriculum in 4 Phoenix-areahigh schools with 88 students.

Established ASU SoftwareFactory to provide professionalsoftware development for students and sponsored projects.

Consortium for Embedded andInter-Networking Technologiescovered by Electronic Timesand American Society forEngineering Education.

6 courses introduced or revised.

ASU Information Systems graduate program ranked 10th nationally by U.S. News and World Report.

Won 5-year National ScienceFoundation IntegrativeGraduate Education andResearch Traineeship grant forworkforce development.

Upgraded nanoscience joint usefacilities with electron beamlithography system.

Upgraded advanced materials/microsystems joint use facilitieswith two new high density plasma deep etch systems.

Purchased test bed equipmentfor high technology manufacturing supply network research.

Developed agenda for newresearch in high technologymanufacturing supply network.

Upgraded technology in 8 classrooms and labs in College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, andBiology Department.

Purchased server equipmentand developed a portable module to provide technologysupport for classrooms campus-wide.

Customized retention and graduation tracking software.

Funded e-learning programdevelopment in technicalcommunication, semiconductormanufacturing, fire servicemanagement, security engineering technology,environmental technologymanagement, special ed, andConnect-MBA.

Supported activities in appliedcomputing at ASU West.

Offered 72 new distance andonline courses and 1 new onlinedegree program.

Established microelectronicsteaching factory at ASU East.

Developed “Intro to InformationTechnology”course for all students.

Provided business developmentservices to ASU entrepreneurs.



TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

New Programs — Many activities for ASU students, faculty, or others in the community related to TRIF goals. This category also includes equipmentand software purchased for specific research areas and throughout ASU, as well as awards and notable publicity received relative to the initiative.

NEW PROGRAMS

23Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 2003.


16 graduate/postdoctorate students enrolled in 301-related programs.

11 undergraduates were given research experience on 301 projects.

5 interdisciplinary researchworkshops in neuroscience,environment and ecology of human and animal populations, musculoskeletaldisease, immunology, and stress research.

Hosted Women’s Health Forumfor ASU researchers and localhealth leaders.

32 internships gave studentswork experience in industry orASU Software Factory.

Hosted workshops, web sites,and meetings to develop interdisciplinary research and performance measures.

13 new graduate studentsenrolled in 301-related research programs.

28 undergraduates weregiven research experience on 301 projects.

1 postdoctorate student gained work experience inresearch support role.

8 research assistantships provided experience on 301 projects.

Hosted Technology andVisualization in the CollegeClassroom for ASU faculty,community college faculty,and K-12 teachers.

96 faculty trained in technology course design.

Hosted individual and groupconferences among ASUresearchers and investors.

Facilitated mentoring relationships betweenresearchers and investors.

Held joint activities with ASU entrepreneurial studentorganizations.

Hosted more than 150 meetings and conferences on technology, research, andeconomic development.

Hosted entrepreneurial education workshops with The Indus Entrepreneur andArizona Venture CapitalConference for ASU constituents.



TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

24

New Skills — The initiatives worked to enhance skills among ASU graduate and undergraduate students, faculty and professionals, and others in thecommunity. This was accomplished through 301-inspired projects, internship programs, seminars, workshops, and new curricula. Many meetings andconferences were also held to further understanding of ASU research and private sector business opportunities.

NEW SKILLS



A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES BEGINS WITH A SINGLE STEP.

FROM HIRING FACULTY MEMBERS AND RESEARCH STAFF

TO UPDATING EQUIPMENT AND SPONSORING CONFERENCES

TO CONDUCTING RESEARCH AND WINNING GRANTS,

THE SIX TRIF IN IT IATIVES ACHIEVED MOST OF THEIR OBJECTIVES

AND TOOK MANY STEPS TOWARD BUILDING THE FOUNDATION

ON WHICH FUTURE RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASED.

Technology at ASU allows students to stay connected to their

professors, their classmates, and the world. This access helps

provide ASU graduates with the skills and experience necessary

for success in the knowledge economy.

The Steps Ahead tables presented in the previous section help to answer

many traditional auditing questions necessary for tracking public programs.

These tables reveal that a large number of constructive activities took

place within ASU’s 301-funded initiatives during FY 2002. But just as there

is a qualitative difference between the person who possesses a lot of

facts and the person who can organize such facts into problem-solving

information or innovative products, the TRIF initiatives should add up to

something more than just a tally of grants, activities, and personnel.

To help define what that “something more” should be for these diverse

fields, Morrison Institute for Public Policy conducted a series of interviews

with Arizona business, political, civic, and media leaders. What emerged

from these conversations was a remarkable consensus and confidence

that 301-funded research would result in the development of exciting

new products and processes. More importantly, these leaders also felt

that, as necessary as the ABOR-approved measures are for tracking

how Proposition 301’s TRIF monies are spent, these measures must be

complemented by additional criteria that gauge the lasting value of TRIF

spending for Arizona’s economy. More than anything else, these leaders

said they wanted to know:

• Did ASU and the business community become more closely tied because

of TRIF spending, and are their fortunes now more mutually dependent?

• Did ASU’s 301 projects bring acclaim to the state from those

who can influence or contribute to Arizona’s prosperity?

• Did the ASU initiatives help keep our state’s best and brightest

minds here and attract more like them?

Such questions, when considered in light of the best thinking about economic development and the new economy, strongly suggest thatArizona should develop an additional yardstick for measuring the value of its investment in university research — one that goes beyond simpleauditing. Therefore, this section presents a new set of criteria to framesuch an analysis.

Research projects expected to add value to the state’s economy shouldbe evaluated on the extent to which they:

Make CONNECTIONS among ASU researchers and external communities, especially individuals and businesses that could partner with ASU to commercialize its research

Attract ATTENTION to ASU’s research, particularly at thenational level and from people and organizations that canenhance Arizona’s economy

Recruit, retain, and develop TALENT who will provideArizona with the innovations, workforce, entrepreneurship,networks, and distinction it needs to compete

These new criteria — henceforth called the CAT measures — represent a means of “keeping score” on ASU’s 301-related activities and outcomes.Growing evidence suggests that measuring up on these would placeArizona in a favorable position to compete in the new economy.

Success according to the CAT measures should enable the state to becomea leader in creating and applying the knowledge that will produce a substantial economic impact. In short, the CAT measures provide Arizonawith a truly original way to evaluate the long-term economic developmentcontribution of public investment in university research.

CONNECTIONS, ATTENTION, AND TALENT: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURINGTHE LASTING VALUE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

27

WHAT’S THE VALUE-ADDED?

SAMPLE CAT INDICATORS

CONNECTIONS

University researchers on boards of companies

Private sector participation in university labwork and events

Joint presentations by university and private sector

Licenses and joint ventures inspired by research

Interactions and personal relationshipsbetween university researchers and peers

ATTENTION

University exposure in national, state,and local media

Presentations by university researchers

Research information disseminated by the university

Hits on university research web sites

Industry recruitment of science and technology students

TALENT

Successful hiring and retention of top research faculty

Science and technology grad students attracted and retained

Private sector individuals trained throughresearch projects

“Visitors-in-residence” associated with university research projects

K-12 outreach by university research projects


28

MEASURING CONNECTIONS

For purposes of analyzing ASU’s Proposition 301 projects, the concept of “connections” focuses on research activities and interactions that link301-funded research and researchers with individuals and organizationsthat can enhance, publicize, or commercialize this work.

Thus, measuring Proposition 301-inspired connections is one way ofdetermining if ASU’s research in science and technology is sufficientlynetworked to move it from the campus to the business community — inother words, from basic research to commercial product. Some indicatorsof connection include:

• ASU 301 researchers on boards of companies

• Private sector participants in 301-related lab work, discussions,and special events

• Joint presentations by 301 researchers and private sector

• Licenses and joint ventures inspired by 301 research

• Interactions and personal relationships between 301 researchersand peers at ASU and other universities

MEASURING ATTENTION

The National Governors Association has stated, “Although knowledgecreation is a critical first step in the wealth-creation process, knowledgecreates no wealth unless it is used.”1 In other words, good research, inisolation, is not enough to create long-term economic impact — someoneoutside the university must be aware of ASU’s research breakthroughsfor them to take effect. This is an obvious, yet easily overlooked, factor inanalyzing the likelihood that a research investment will yield a return.

The power of this “attention factor” is illustrated by the recent openingof a University of Wisconsin technology transfer office...in San Diego. At

first blush, this may sound like a boondoggle, but actually it is a smartmove. After years of hard work, the San Diego region — particularlyUCSD — has established itself as a leader in science and technologyresearch, and earned an international reputation that draws venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. This success in new economy businesses is now widely acknowledged both in the press and by word-of-mouth,hence others, like the University of Wisconsin, have a legitimate reasonfor wanting to get in on the action.

When it comes to attracting attention, more is usually better. Therefore“getting the word out” on what 301 researchers are working on and theproducts they intend to create will increase the TRIF investment’seconomic potential. Measures of attention include:

• Exposure of ASU’s 301 research or researchers in national,state, and local media

• Presentations by ASU 301 researchers, especially to large groupsthat include the private sector

• Information distributed by ASU 301 projects

• Hits on 301 research project web sites

• Targeted recruiting of ASU science and technology students

MEASURING TALENT

Attention and connections indicators are inextricably linked to the finalCAT measure, talent — the pool of educated, creative, motivated workersin the state. In order for economic development to occur, university-basedscience and technology talent not only must be connected to externalcommunities, but also must be recognized by the rest of the country.According to Bill Breen, writing in the magazine Fast Company, “Top talentisn’t just found at Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford. There are plenty of greatpeople hidden away.”2 One of economic development’s challenges is tobring these people to light.

Not long ago, the keys for a region to attract business location and

expansion decisions were low taxes, limited government regulation, and

proximity to markets. Now, the main ingredient for attracting and retaining

businesses has become talent. The National Governors Association,

working with Harvard University’s Michael Porter and the Council on

Competitiveness, determined that an abundant, creative, scientifically

literate work force will likely make the difference between winners and

losers in the new economy. According to the NGA, “CEOs report that the

availability of technically trained talent is their top priority — one that

often determines where they locate high-value investments.”3

Consequently, the degree to which ASU’s 301 projects enhance Arizona’s

talent pool in science and technology represents an important measure

of their contribution to the state’s economy. Arizona, however, is not known

as a state that attracts business development on the quality of its talent.

Quite the contrary, Arizona is better known for its low standardized test

scores among K-12 students and its relatively unremarkable percentage

of residents with college degrees, especially among younger workers.

This helps explain why a recent national study conducted by the Greater

Phoenix Economic Council shows that business site selection consultants,

national business writers, and top-level executives primarily identify the

state with tourism and retirement industries. While these industries

remain valuable assets, they must be complemented by a workforce that

is scientifically and technically capable if the state is to benefit from the

powerful wealth creation forces such people can unleash.

For now, Arizona does not trade on the attractiveness of its talent pool.

Over time, the TRIF-sponsored initiatives could help change that. To gauge

their success, they should be measured on the degree to which they help

attract, develop, and retain the kind of talented labor pool that economic

development professionals use to “sell” a state nowadays. Such talent in

Arizona could produce a major downstream impact on the economy if it

were to influence local business startups or add value to existing firms.

Ways to measure 301’s contributions to the state’s talent pool include:

• Successful recruitment and retention of top faculty and staffresearchers for 301 research

• Science and technology graduate students attracted and retainedby 301 research projects

• Private sector individuals trained through ASU 301 projects

• “Visitors-in-residence” from universities and businesses workingwith ASU 301 projects

• K-12 outreach by ASU 301 projects

ANALYSIS OF VALUE-ADDED AT ASU

The CAT measures were developed to complement, not replace, outcomemeasures approved by ABOR. They are both a framework for thinkingabout long-term, big-picture economic development issues, and a set ofindicators that, through systematic analysis, can be used to measureprogress and tangible contributions to the state’s economy.

ASU’s six TRIF initiatives made accomplishments that fit the CAT paradigmduring year one of the 20-year research program. But in fairness to theinitiatives’ first year — during which a great deal of time must be spenton organizing and staffing — and in recognition of the many activitiesthat took place before this model was established, no attempt was madeto compile a full accounting for FY 2002 using CAT indicators. Futureanalysis of 301 projects, however, as well as public investments inuniversity research in the larger sense, should — and will — make thisapproach a useful yardstick for determining value-added.

As noted earlier, many Proposition 301-inspired activities at ASU havealready helped Arizona establish new connections, gain attention, andbegin to attract or develop new talent. Six examples are presented on thefollowing pages to provide anecdotal evidence of how such indicators ofsuccess can be identified and how they can contribute economic value.

29

The Factory Operations Research Center (FORCe) is a program

sponsored jointly by the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC)

and International SEMATECH, two research consortia of semiconductor

manufacturers. SRC and SEMATECH represent most of the major

semiconductor companies operating in the world today. ASU is a

major participant in the FORCe program.

FORCe coordinates five individual research projects for the two

consortia. Each of these projects is aimed at a different strategy for

improving the efficiency of wafer fabrication. In the semiconductor

industry, wafer fabrication is the most costly manufacturing step,

both in terms of dollars — a new fabrication factory, or “fab,” costs

$3 billion to build — and in terms of time — it often takes two

months to complete the fabrication process, compared to only two

weeks for all other manufacturing operations.

The goal of the FORCe program is to develop software tools and

techniques that will allow consortium members to complete the

fabrication process faster and cheaper with the same level of quality.

ASU professor John Fowler serves as the center director of FORCe.

Two of the five research projects are also led by ASU faculty — each

project involving collaboration with researchers at other universities.

In addition, Fowler and the ASU team leaders serve on FORCe’s “Core

Team” made up of high-level representatives of selected consortium

companies. The Core Team meets regularly to provide direction to

the projects.

Proposition 301 funds help support several aspects of this research,

including faculty salaries and graduate student stipends. Approximately

seven ASU industrial engineering students are funded to work on

high tech factory modeling. Upon completion of their degrees, these

students are likely to be hired by sponsoring companies, thereby

transferring university technology directly to the manufacturers.

Faculty, also, are expected to interact with manufacturers and suppliers

by visiting fabs and taking sabbaticals at member company plants.

Through FORCe and its research projects, ASU has established formal

research connections with 11 universities around the country and the

world, including Cornell University, University of California – Berkeley,

University of Arkansas, Fraunhofer Institute (Germany), and National

Taiwan University. In addition, ASU faculty and students have been

connected with many of the world’s semiconductor giants, including

Advanced Micro Devices, IBM, Infineon Technologies, Intel, Motorola,

ST Microelectronics, National Semiconductor, and Texas Instruments.

Furthermore, the FORCe projects continue to create new connections

for ASU. For example, the ongoing FORCe research enabled ASU to

win a prestigious NSF grant for the purpose of investigating related

aspects of manufacturing modeling. This effort, led by ASU’s Gerald

Mackulak, is a joint project with researchers at Northwestern

University, thereby connecting another institution to its network of

universities interested in manufacturing systems research.30

FORCE PROJECT CONNECTS ASU RESEARCH

TO INDUSTRY AND UNIVERSIT IES

Building Capacity

for Connections

Innovation takes

place in trust

networks that

link university

researchers,

entrepreneurs,

financiers, lawyers,

and accountants

to markets. The

unit of innovation

has become the

network.

— Doug Henton

Collaboration and

Innovation: the State

of American Regions

31

The International Innovation Initiative (I-cubed) provides a platform

for connecting the technology transfer efforts of member universities

throughout the world. Initiated under the leadership of Columbia

University, I-cubed membership includes institutions from the United

States, Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, and Taiwan.

The purpose of I-cubed is to bundle related research discoveries from

member universities so that their combined technologies become more

marketable. To accomplish this task, technology transfer offices at

member institutions exchange patent lists and engage in presentations

and analyses of their research technologies to identify areas that

might form the basis for synergistic collaborations.

Arizona State University’s first I-cubed collaboration matched Ig Tsong

at ASU and Asif Khan at the University of South Carolina. The goal of

these two research scientists is to build an economical light-emitting

diode (LED) based on wide bandgap materials integrated onto a silicon

wafer. Wide bandgap materials are characterized by their ability to

operate at high temperature and emit light at the blue and ultraviolet

end of the spectrum.

Tsong’s contribution to this collaboration is the development of a new

substrate material that allows wide bandgap semiconductors such as

gallium nitride to bond to silicon wafers, and may enable LED fabrication

at substantially lower cost than alternative approaches. This research

has been supported by Proposition 301 funds. Khan’s contribution is

to use the substrate provided by Tsong and coworkers at ASU to create

a new LED device.

If the collaboration between Tsong and Khan is successful, it will not

only demonstrate the viability of Tsong’s new substrate, but also

could make a significant impact on the development of LED light

sources for consumer applications, such as high-efficiency home lighting.

Thus, a cross-university connection fostered by I-cubed will greatly

increase the likelihood that these two researchers can speed their

technical breakthroughs to the market and also attract licensing

revenue for their work.

I -CUBED CONNECTS UNIVERSIT IES

THROUGH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

32

The primary goal of AZBio is to foster interdisciplinary collaborative

health research in the Phoenix metro area. Collaborative-minded

health researchers, however, often have trouble finding one another

in Arizona’s largest metropolis. While the region is home to plenty

of bioscience expertise, the talent pool is fragmented due to a

decentralized system of independent hospitals, university science

departments, private biotech firms, and other health care businesses

and government agencies. This system tends to isolate people by

distance, security issues, and in many cases, market competition.

AzBio’s Kathy Matt, therefore, came up with a strategy to overcome

some of the effects of this isolation. In May 2002, she teamed AzBio

up with the governor’s office to host the “Women’s Health Research

Forum.” The idea was to pull together the region’s best women’s

health researchers in a non-competitive setting at ASU so they could

develop new cooperative research relationships. The forum was

backed by ASU’s Proposition 301 monies.

The day-long format of the forum was straightforward. A number

of top women’s health researchers made presentations describing

their fields of work. Where interests overlapped, presenters and

other participants had the opportunity to meet and discuss

possible collaborations.

One of the morning sessions featured a hospital oncologist who

reported on her clinical work involving breast cancer. Later, AzBio’s

Matt explained her research on the effects of stress on the body.

Something clicked for the oncologist — she told Matt that her patients

frequently wanted to know how stress affects both their cancer and

their treatment. The two researchers quickly joined forces to tackle this

question, and they subsequently developed an interdisciplinary collabo-

rative research proposal that has been submitted to NIH for funding.

The forum, however, did not only inspire new interdisciplinary

collaborations; it also attracted significant attention on three levels:

local, state, and national. First, in the regional domain of health

research, it established ASU as a neutral venue for open discussion

of bioscience research ideas — something not always available in the

competitive, often secretive, atmosphere of the private sector. Second,

it briefed representatives of state agencies on the value of ongoing

research in the region, as well as the opportunities that may lie ahead.

This bolsters policy arguments for expanding such research both for

its medical and its economic potential. Third, the forum raised the

Phoenix metro area’s national profile in bioscience research by

demonstrating to keynote speaker Dr. Wanda Jones — assistant

deputy director of the Office of Women’s Health, U.S. Office of Health

and Human Services — that the region has a critical mass of research

talent that should be further supported and funded. She has since

“talked up” ASU to other women’s health researchers in the country.

In addition, numerous radio and newspaper outlets publicized the

forum, and a prominent news personality moderated the culminating

lecture and discussion. In all, about 100 researchers, agency represen-

tatives, and policymakers attended the forum’s events.

WOMEN’S HEALTH RESEARCH DRAWSATTENTION OF KEY AGENCIES AND SCIENTISTS

33

The Consortium for Embedded and Inter-Networking Technologies

(CEINT) was founded by ASU, Intel Corporation, and Motorola. The

intent of the consortium is to increase knowledge and markets in

the area of embedded technology — the tiny computer chips and

their software that make modern appliances, networks, and other

equipment appear to be “smart.”

Proposition 301 funding pays for ASU’s membership in the consortium,

and also supports two faculty hired especially to augment embedded

research and applications at the university.

A major goal of the consortium is to develop and strengthen ASU’s

curriculum in embedded technology so graduates are better prepared

to work in this emerging field. To date the consortium has made direct

awards of over $1million for research and curriculum development.

This investment will eventually save the industry substantial time and

money that would otherwise go to training new employees.

Associated with the curriculum thrust is an internship program

in which graduate and undergraduate students work on faculty-

supervised embedded technology projects at sponsoring companies.

The internships give students real-world job experience while earning

them course credits toward their degrees.

Another major goal of the consortium is to attract significant

attention to both the university and the region as a global center

for cutting-edge embedded systems research and manufacturing.

The consortium has managed to gain some important notice during

its first year. For example:

• News articles on the consortium have appeared in local and

national news media, as well as in national trade journals.

• Consortium members made presentations at national conferences,

including an entire session on “embedded ecosystems” at the

annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and

Communications (IPC3), and poster sessions on ASU’s embedded

technology curriculum at the annual conference of the American

Society of Engineering Educators (ASEE).

• Motorola named ASU one of only five universities in the nation

to receive targeted recruitment of its computer science and

engineering graduates. Other targeted universities include MIT,

Georgia Tech, and University of California, Berkeley.

In addition, the National Science Foundation saw enough promise

in ASU’s embedded technology curriculum project to award two

major grants totaling $780,000 to support and expand curriculum

development. At the same time, the consortium has been working

actively to expand its base of industry and university members.

As a side benefit of the growing “buzz” surrounding consortium

activities, ASU’s Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) department

has been able to attract highly regarded young talent in its latest

faculty searches. Altogether, CSE has successfully filled five new

positions in this competitive field in the past year.

EMBEDDED SYSTEMS WORK ATTRACTS ATTENTION OF INDUSTRY AND NSF

Building Capacity

for Attention

Promoting and

marketing a

region’s industrial

and research

results serve to

link the region’s

intellectual power

to practical

applications…

the process attracts

investments,

venture capital, and

talented workers.

— Ross Devol

America’s High Tech

Economy: Growth,

Development and Risks

for Metropolitan Areas,

Milken Institute

34

ASU’s biomolecular nanotechnology graduate program links eight

diverse research disciplines in engineering and the physical and life

sciences through a Ph.D. program that promotes interdisciplinary

teamwork. Among the research disciplines are chemical and materials

engineering, molecular and cellular biology, physics, and plant biology.

The goal of the program is to develop collaborative-minded

researchers who can work effectively with their counterparts in other

fields. Such teams are needed to perform cutting-edge research in

many high tech companies.

Motorola, for example, is currently interested in developing molecular

electronics. Lockheed/Martin is looking into ways to create living

biosensors. And Kodak is investigating organic molecules that respond

to and communicate with light. These types of research require the

combined talents of scientists and engineers who understand the

most advanced aspects of biotechnology, nanofabrication, materials

science, nanoelectronics, biochemistry, and biophysics. To be successful,

these researchers must also understand how to work together.

For ASU’s bio-nano graduate students, the first research task has been

to pool their individual talents to develop a nanoscale chemical delivery

system. The finished device will employ a molecular motor that can

“drive” to a specific position, burst open, and deposit the chemical on

its intended target.

To accomplish their task, the bio-nano graduate students have had

to learn chip fabrication techniques in a joint-use “clean room” facility

located at ASU’s Center for Solid State Electronics Research (CSSER).

In this clean room, the students work under the guidance of a process

technician funded by Proposition 301 monies. Additional support for

the CSSER clean room has come from Intel, which donated the tools,

and Motorola, which provided the installation expertise. Based on

this support, plus the talent-building promise of the interdisciplinary

curriculum, the bio-nano program won a prestigious IGERT (Integrative

Graduate Education and Research Traineeship) grant from NSF in 2001.

The IGERT grant will support up to 10 new Ph.D. students each year —

for a total of about 40 funded students in the program after four years.

The IGERT students will also be eligible for internships at Arizona high

tech companies to acquire work experience and become acquainted

with potential employers.

The benefits of ASU’s bio-nano program may reverberate in Arizona

for years to come. Large high tech companies like Intel and Motorola

often report that one of their most critical workforce challenges is

finding the talent for interdisciplinary teams involved in advanced

research projects. Now, however, the bio-nano program is training

just such talent.

If past experience holds true, most of these students will be hired by

local companies and remain in the state after graduation. These new

leaders of science and engineering research will then provide the

basis for attracting and mentoring the next generations of talented

researchers for Arizona.

BIO-NANO CURRICULUM CREATESINTERDISCIPLINARY TALENT

Building Capacity

for Talent

The sine qua non

of a modern

economy is a

well-educated,

versatile work

force able to

conduct R&D

and to convert

its results into

innovative

products, processes,

and services.

— A Governor’s Guide

to Building State Science

and Technology Capacity,

National Governors

Association

35

Technological advances have altered the landscape of the American

work place and changed the way basic research is conducted in nearly

every academic discipline. But while most students enter college with

basic computer skills, they have not yet learned to apply these skills

to their chosen fields. Therefore, Information Technology Across the

Curriculum (ITATC) was conceived to better integrate technological

changes into ASU’s educational program. ITATC provides a

campus-wide approach for upgrading the technology skills of all

ASU students so they are better equipped to contribute to their

professions upon graduation.

The main thrust of ITATC is to hire technology-oriented faculty in

nontechnical academic departments across campus. ITATC facilitates

these new hires by funding approximately half of their salary costs.

The new faculty under ITATC are then held to the same discipline-

specific standards as other members of their departments but, in

addition, they are expected to model the use of their technology skills

in the design and delivery of their classes. Their presence is intended

to jump-start or accelerate the pace of technological change within their

departments. The ITATC hires are also expected to assist colleagues in

utilizing technology for their classrooms and research.

In its first year, ITATC helped fund six new faculty appointments

involving seven disciplines: nursing, education, law, English, engineering/

fine arts (a joint hire), and languages and literatures. More ITATC hires

are anticipated for the future, including one each for psychology,

political science, and justice studies. Proposition 301 monies support

ITATC by providing the funds for shared salary costs of new

tech-oriented faculty.

Languages and literatures professor Dan Gilfillan is one of the new

faculty appointments resulting from an ITATC search conducted in

FY 2002. For his spring 2003 course — “Digital Texts and Print

Experiments” — students will examine the recent transition from print to

digital technology and the impacts this transition has had on publishing,

literary content, intellectual property rights, and the author-reader

relationship. As part of their studies, the students will learn how to

use the Internet to conduct research, and how to create electronic

publications stemming from the results of their investigations.

New ITATC faculty, such as Gilfillan, will also assist in developing an

interdisciplinary IT program for nontechnical majors. The introductory

courses in this program are intended to provide a core competency in

IT skills; however, each course will also be tailored to an individual

academic discipline so it is relevant to a student’s major. Subsequent

courses will offer greater depth in computing and IT within the

framework of nontechnical disciplines, leading to a total of six courses

that can be taken as electives or as a minor in IT.

With greater technical skills, ASU graduates will be able to contribute

to their employers more quickly in their new careers. This should

strengthen Arizona’s workforce and support continued economic

development in the state.

TECH-ORIENTED FACULTY AND COURSESSTRENGTHEN FUTURE WORKFORCE TALENT

ASU research specialist Jeffrey Thresher assists with studies of

peptides and proteins in the Department of Kinesiology. The

equipment he is using measures and analyzes how muscles relax,

providing knowledge that may help treat heart disease in humans.

When ASU’s TRIF projects were first conceived, they were structured as

six discrete initiatives consisting of multiple individual components. This

structure served as the setting for FY 2002 activities of the Proposition 301

initiatives and represents the startup phase of ASU’s 301 research.

For FY 2003 and beyond, ASU’s 301 research has entered a consolidation

phase in which the nature of ASU’s TRIF investments will be substantially

reshaped. Components from different initiatives will be combined into

one or more major integrated projects in order to foster large-scale

interdisciplinary collaboration, a strategy considered necessary for

conducting the next generations of science and technology research.

At the same time, some investments will be redirected to other areas

or to new projects altogether.

With this reshaping, boundaries between initiatives will tend to

disappear, and focused, interdisciplinary “mega-projects” will dominate

the research agenda. These mega-projects will align research efforts

across a number of fields, spawning new research centers to draw

together the best and most ambitious research faculty already at ASU.

Areas of need will be shored up through recruitment of strategic new

hires and graduate students.

As before, Proposition 301 investment dollars are expected to be leveraged

by attracting grants and funding from corporations, consortia, federal

agencies, and other institutions. The integrated nature of the mega-

projects should provide additional opportunities for funding and

collaborative relationships with such entities. ASU’s mega-projects

are also expected to increase the potential for research discoveries

that create significant economic impact.

FIRST MEGA-PROJECT: ARIZONA BIODESIGN INSTITUTE

The first mega-project is an expansion of the biosciences initiative. This

is signaled by a name change from the Arizona Biomedical Institute to

the Arizona Biodesign Institute (AzBio). Under this reorganization, the

scope of AzBio will be broadened considerably to include not only the

biosciences, but also key aspects of materials science, information

technology, and possibly manufacturing. AzBio will also be supported

by targeted Proposition 301 investments in other areas, particularly

workforce development and technology transfer.

The primary goal of AzBio will be to conduct research that can directly

advance biomedicine, thereby bringing recognition to the Phoenix

metro area as a biotech hub. AzBio will focus on two main areas:

1) Biologics and Therapeutics by Design will investigate vaccine

production, new classes of pharmaceuticals from proteins and

peptides, and rehabilitation engineering based on interfacing

microelectronic systems with the central nervous system.

2) Nano-Bio Systems by Design will concentrate on ways to manipulate

living systems at the molecular level to create nanoscale bio-optical

(light activated) technologies, flexible microneural probes, “lab on a

chip” biosystems, and other new sensing, analytical, or treatment

technologies for human health.

Cross-cutting research on genomics and informatics will bridge these

two areas. In addition, AzBio will house on-site technology transfer staff

who will assist research teams in connecting their research discoveries

to commercial enterprises.

HEADING INTO THE FUTURE:

NEW FOCUS FOR PROPOSIT ION 301-FUNDED RESEARCH

37

38

To accommodate AzBio, a new 170,000-square-foot research facility has

been approved for ASU’s main campus. Construction is scheduled to

begin in early 2003, with completion anticipated for 2004. This building

will consist primarily of state-of-the-art laboratory and office space for

bioscience and bioengineering, nanotechnology, and informatics. It

will be designed to facilitate interactions and collaborations among

researchers, and to have flexible space that can easily be reorganized

to accommodate new research thrusts in coming years.

A portion of the new AzBio facility will be made available to other

bioscience research organizations. Carl Hayden Veterans Administration

Medical Center, for example, plans to lease space in the building to

accommodate the hiring of at least a dozen new biomedical and

bioengineering researchers. These researchers are expected to receive joint

appointments at ASU. As more or different space is needed — possibly

in three to five years — a second AzBio building is envisioned. Beyond

that, a total of four AzBio facilities could eventually stand on the site.

CONTINUING INVESTMENTS: INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS

Several current research activities outside AzBio will continue to receive

301 funding. Some of these may, at some future date, be wrapped

together in another mega-project. One proposal under consideration

is for a large interdisciplinary project focusing on “cognitive ubiquitous

computing” (CubiC) for improved human performance applications. This

project would incorporate research on wireless nanotechnology for

advanced-generation communication devices, interactive guidance sys-

tems for the blind and blind-deaf, networked sensors for environmental

and security applications, and intelligent information fusion. Among

the continuing projects and their parent initiatives are the following:

Information ScienceThe Consortium for Embedded and Inter-Networking Technologies

(CEINT ) is a research partnership with Intel and Motorola, created to

increase knowledge and markets in the area of embedded technology.

CEINT has already attracted substantial NSF funding and is working to

enlist additional partners for its continued research.

Connection One (C-1) is a consortium comprised of ASU and six high

tech companies, plus the National Science Foundation. The purpose is to

conduct research on mixed-signal processing and wireless technologies.

C-1 is actively recruiting new partners to expand its research.

The Center for Advancing Business through Information Technology

(CABIT) conducts research on the implications of information technology

for business. CABIT has formed a research relationship with Intel to

conduct a number of projects, and it is currently developing new

research relationships with public and private sector organizations.

Advanced MaterialsTwo related centers operate in conjunction with the Advanced Materials

initiative. The Center for Solid State Science (CSSS) provides support for

interdisciplinary research in solid state physics and chemistry, earth and

planetary sciences, and materials research. The Center for Solid State

Electronics Research (CSSER) provides support facilities for solid state

electronics research across a wide range of disciplines including electrical,

chemical, mechanical, and industrial engineering; materials science; and

bioengineering. Both centers attract industry partnerships and federal

grants. An NSF-funded IGERT program in biomolecular photonics makes

use of CSSER facilities.

For 2003 and beyond, the two centers intend to provide staff support

and equipment upgrades for cleanroom and other joint-use facilities.

The IGERT program in biomolecular photonics will also continue, and will

serve as a model for other new interdisciplinary graduate-level programs.

Manufacturing

This initiative will continue to focus on basic research related to

manufacturing supply networks, with an emphasis on semiconductor

manufacturing operations. Proposition 301 funding will support ongoing

projects that involve partnership with Intel, two major semiconductor

research consortia, and other universities both in the U.S. and abroad.

In addition, the initiative intends to create new curricula and graduate

programs to support the manufacturing industry’s workforce, and also

to form a nationwide university research consortium that includes MIT,

Stanford, and University of Pennsylvania.

Workforce

Information Technology Across the Curriculum (ITATC) will continue its

program for upgrading student IT skills campus-wide by helping to hire

tech-oriented faculty in nontechnical majors. For 2003, ITATC intends to

conduct 10 new searches for tenure-track faculty in liberal arts, justice

studies, and other areas to be determined by a competitive process.

These 10 new hires, when made, will fulfill ITATC’s goal of helping fund

a total of 16 new tech-oriented faculty by 2004.

The activities of AzBio will also be supported by investments of

Proposition 301 funds in targeted workforce development strategies.

These will take place in three areas:

• A proposed School of Life Sciences at ASU will offer interdisciplinary

life science curricula for undergraduate students. The goal is to prepare

students to engage in the type of graduate programs that are the

basis for research at AzBio and other advanced research facilities.

• The Center for Research on Education in Science, Mathematics,

Engineering, and Technology (CRESMET )—an alliance of ASU

colleges of Education, Engineering and Applied Sciences, and

Liberal Arts and Sciences—is intended to improve education for

students in the areas of math, science, engineering, and technology.

Proposition 301 funds will help expand the program to provide

outreach to K-12 schools, with one of the goals of this outreach to

establish a link with AzBio that will bring new research knowledge

directly to the classroom

• The math and science honors program of the Institute for

Strengthening Understanding of Math and Science (SUMS) currently

works with gifted, disadvantaged K-12 students who might be

interested in careers that require math and science. Proposition 301

funding will expand its focus to include both undergraduate and

graduate students.

Technology Transfer

Technology Transfer staff will provide on-site support for AzBio, and

will also continue to work with interested faculty to patent and license

their research discoveries. In addition, ASU plans to introduce a

comprehensive “technology venturing” program that will work directly

with researchers, entrepreneurs, industry associations, economic

development professionals, and service providers to build an

“entrepreneurial infrastructure” that will help speed commercialization

of new ASU technologies. The technology venturing program is expected

to guide researchers and entrepreneurs from research discovery to startup

company or business alliance, and will offer business development

assistance that includes business plan writing, introductions to advisors

and investors, and the services of a technology commercialization firm

to assess the potential of new ASU technologies.

The chart on the following page summarizes continuing and anticipated

activities for all six initiatives.

39

40

AZBio has been renamed theArizona Biodesign Institute and has been broadenedconsiderably to include aspectsof materials science, informationtechnology, and manufacturing.The initiative will concentrateon “Biologics and Therapeutics by Design,” and “Nano-BioSystems by Design.”

The Consortium for Embeddedand Inter-Networking Technologiesis working to attract new fund-ing and enlist new partners forits research.

Connection One is expected to add new partners for further capacity in mixed signal processing and wirelesstechnologies.

The Center for AdvancingBusiness Through InformationTechnology is partnering withIntel on research projects anddeveloping new research relationships with public and private sector entities.

Upgrades and staff support will continue for the Center forSolid State Science and theCenter for Solid State ElectronicsResearch cleanroom facilities.

The Integrative GraduateEducation and ResearchTraineeship curriculum in bio-molecular photonics will serveas a model for other interdisciplinary graduate programs.

Research partnerships with Intel and two major semiconductor consortia will continue to focus on manufacturing supply networks.

New curricula and graduate programs will target industryworkforce needs.

A university research consortium is planned withpartners nationwide.

Workforce activities will support AzBio in the followingareas: development of a School of Life Sciences;funding for the Center forResearch on Education inScience, Mathematics,Engineering and Technologyand funding for the SUMS Math and ScienceHonors program.

IT Across The Curriculum willparticipate in hiring 10 addi-tional tech-oriented faculty for non-technical academic departments.

This initiative will provide on-site tech transfer staff at the new AzBio facility, and willcontinue to work with faculty to patent and license their discoveries.

A planned technology venturing program will build an “entrepreneurial infrastructure”to guide new ASU technologiesthrough startup or businessalliance, and will offer businessdevelopment assistance to ASU entrepreneurs.



TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER


Data: Arizona State University report: Prop 301/Technology & Research Initiative Fund – FY 2002 Results, July 2002; Draft Arizona Biodesign 301 Business Plan;Interviews conducted as of December 2002 with ASU administrators and principal investigators for TRIF initiatives.

LOOKING BEYOND: WHERE THE IN IT IATIVES ARE HEADED

Today’s especially difficult economic times have been severelychallenging for Arizona businesses and governments. However, the long-term economic investment represented by Proposition 301’sTechnology and Research Initiative Fund offers new opportunities andhope for Arizona’s economic future.

This report presents a broad first look at the accomplishments andpotential economic impact of Arizona’s 20-year TRIF investment in ASUresearch. The first-year activities that were documented for the ArizonaBoard of Regents indicate that ASU’s six initiatives engaged in numerousimportant research projects and support activities, and seem to haveaccomplished a great deal.

One notable achievement is that ASU’s six initiatives attracted over $14million in external financing through grants and partnerships in FY 2002. This amount is almost double their TRIF spending for the fiscalyear, and nearly matches their total allocation. Such leveraging ofProposition 301 dollars implies that, as individual projects move forwardand their joint ventures and partnerships mature, many have the potentialto become self-supporting. Consequently, future TRIF financing could thenbe reinvested in other promising new endeavors in line with ABOR’s goals.

Ultimately, however, the measure of economic success for theTechnology and Research Initiative will be the degree to which it contributes to Arizona’s competitiveness in science and technology.In the knowledge economy, states with superior capacity to conductand commercialize science and technology research will become the bigwealth creators. The activities of a state’s universities are an essentialelement for developing such capacity, and ASU has been engaged inthis type of research for many years.

This report establishes a new framework for tracking the long-term,

value-added contributions to the state from ASU’s TRIF research projects.

This framework goes beyond the traditional listing of activities and

money generated. Instead, it describes new criteria called “CAT” measures

(Connections, Attention and Talent) for determining the extent to which

the TRIF projects yield lasting, productive economic connections for ASU,

draw decision makers’ attention to the state, and develop the creative

talent and opportunities needed to make Arizona a competitive player

in the knowledge economy. In combination, the traditional measures

and CAT measures are a powerful means of analyzing both the annual

and longer-term economic value of the TRIF investment.

At this very early stage, it appears that ASU’s six initiatives are in a

position to perform favorably under the new, value-added CAT

framework. In fact, this report describes several ASU TRIF activities that

illustrate important first-year accomplishments in line with the new

measures. Yet these illustrations are anecdotal, not comprehensive

evidence that ASU’s projects will have the desired economic impact

over the long haul. Those who judge the worth of 301’s university

investments must remember that TRIF is a marathon, not a sprint.

To determine whether the state’s 301/TRIF research investment strategy

is an economic development success, the initiatives will need to be

regularly and systematically measured in terms of the research products

they develop, the external funding they generate, and the connections,

attention, and talent they produce for the university and the state.

Collectively, these measures will enable Arizona to assess whether

TRIF is a worthy investment of its public funds.


41

In the knowledge

economy, states

with superior

capacity to

conduct and

commercialize

science and

technology

research will

become the big

wealth creators.

SOURCES, NOTES, AND PHOTO CREDITS

42

SOURCES

Amato, Ivan. 1999. Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom.National Science and Technology Council.

Ansley, Mike. 2000. “Virtual Manufacturing: The Internet is Bringing on a PivotalChange in Manufacturing Economics,” CMA Management, February.

Arizona Bioindustry Cluster. 2001. Overview. Available online at www.azbiocluster.org/overview.html

Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration. 2001.Arizona Occupational Forecasts, 1998-2008. August.

Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration. 2001.“Slowdown Deepens for Arizona in the Third Quarter of 2001,”Arizona Quarterly Review, November 29.

Association of University Technology Managers. 2001. AUTM Licensing Survey;FY 2000 Survey Summary.

Biotechnology Industry Organization. 2002. Some Facts About Biotechnology.Available online at www.bio.org/er/statistics.asp

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2001. Industry Accounts Data: Gross Domestic Product by Industry. BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Burrill & Company. Biotech 2002, The 16th Annual Report on the Industry,Burrill & Company LLC, San Francisco, April, 2002.

Brunnermeier, Smita B., and Sheila A. Martin. 1999. Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain. Research Triangle Institute,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Collaborative Economics. 1999. The Changing Face of the Software Cluster inArizona. Arizona Department of Commerce, Phoenix, Arizona.

Committee on Information Technology Research in a Competitive World,National Research Council. 2000. Making IT Better. National Academy Press,Washington, D.C.

Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology, National ResearchCouncil. 2001. Building a Workforce for the Information Economy. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C.

Devol, Ross. 2002. The State Technology and Science Index, Milken Institute.

Devol, Ross. 1999. America’s High Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas, Milken Institute.

Ernst & Young. 2000. The Economic Contributions of the Biotechnology Industry to the U.S. Economy. Prepared for the Biotechnology Industry Organization,May Technology Partnership Practice, Battelle Memorial Institute, and State Science and Technology Institute. 2001.

Ewalt, David M. 2002. “The Next (not so) Big Thing.” Informationweek, May 13.

Fullerton, Howard N., Jr., and Mitra Toossi. 2001. “Labor Force Projections to 2010: Steady Growth and Changing Composition,” Monthly Labor Review,November. Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections,Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hecker, Daniel E. 2001. “Occupational Employment Projections to 2010,”Monthly Labor Review, November. Office of Occupational Statistics andEmployment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Henton, Doug, “Collaboration and Innovation: The State of American Regions,”Industry & Higher Education, February 2002.

Information Technology Association of America. 2001. The U.S. InformationTechnology Industry: A Brief Overview. ITAA, Arlington, Virginia.

Information Technology Association of America. 2000. Bridging the Gap:Information Technology Skills for a New Millennium. ITAA, Arlington, Virginia.

Information Technology Information Council. 2001. IT and Productivity.Available online at www.itic.org/policy/tax_produc.htm

Jamison, Douglas W., and Christina Jansen. 2000. “Technology Transfer andEconomic Growth,” The Journal of the Association of University TechnologyManagers, Vol XII.

Jorgenson, Dale W., and Kevin J. Stiroh. 2000. Raising the Speed Limit:U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age. Available online atwww.ny.frb.org/rmaghome/economist/stiroh/ks_grw.pdf

Kalis, Nannette. 2001. Technology Transfer Through New Company Formation:Why U.S. Universities Are Incubating Companies. NBIA Publications, Athens, Ohio.

Manufacturing Institute. 1999. The Facts About Modern Manufacturing,Fifth Edition. National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.

Nanotechnology Magazine. “The Nanotechnology Economy.” Available online at www.nanozine.com/NANOECON.htm

Nanotechnology Magazine. “What is Nanotechnology?” Available online at www.nanozine.com/WHATNANO.htm

National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Capitalizing on New Needs and New Opportunities. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Governors Association. 2002. A Governor’s Guide to Building State Science and Technology Capacity, Washington, D.C.

President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. 1999. InformationTechnology Research: Investing in Our Future. National Coordination Office forComputing, Information, and Communications, Arlington, Virginia, February.

Rogers, Everett M., Jing Yin, and Joern Hoffmann. 2000. “Assessing theEffectiveness of Technology Transfer Offices at U.S. Research Universities,”The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, Vol XII.

Salzman, Harold. 2000. The Information Technology Industries and Workforces: WorkOrganization and Human Resource Issues. Report prepared for National Academyof Sciences Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology.

Scientific American. September, 2001 issue.

Service, Robert F. 2001. “Breakthrough of the Year: Molecules Get Wired.”Science, Dec. 21.

State Government Initiatives in Biotechnology 2001. Prepared for BiotechnologyIndustry Organization.

Vorenberg, Sue. 2002. “Bioboom,” Albuquerque Tribune, February 5.

State Science and Technology Institute. 2001. The Dynamics of Technology-based Economic Development. SSTI, Westerville, Ohio.

Tassey, Gregory. 2002. R&D and Long-Term Competitiveness: Manufacturing’s Central Role in a Knowledge-Based Economy. National Institute of Standards & Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

World Information and Technology Services Alliance (WITSA). 2000.Digital Planet 2000. WITSA, Arlington, Virginia, November.

NOTES

Proposition 301’s Promise for the Knowledge Economy

1 Mary Lindenstein Walshok, “Rethinking the Role of Research Universities in Economic Development,” Industry and Higher Education, March 1994, p. 8.

Connections, Attention, and Talent: A New Framework for Measuring the Lasting Value of Science and Technology Research

1 National Governors Association, A Governor’s Guide to Building State Science and Technology Capacity, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 8.

2 Bill Breen, “Where Are You on the Talent Map?” Fast Company, January 2001.

3 A Governor’s Guide to Building State Science and Technology Capacity, p. 8.

PHOTO CREDITS

Our appreciation to the people and the organizations who supplied photographs reproduced in this report.

Advanced Bionics Corporation

Advanced Composites

ConocoPhillips

Intel

MED-EL Corporation

Ping, Inc.

Bob Rink, City of Phoenix

Ted Stratton, Moving Pictures

Tim Trumble, Arizona State University

43

INTERVIEWS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

44

INTERVIEWS

We are particularly indebted to the following people who gave their time for thoughtful interviews:*

Linda Blessing, Executive Director, Arizona Board of Regents

Randall Gnant, President of the Arizona Senate;Arizona State Senator, District 28

Chris Herstam, President-Elect of Arizona Board of Regents;Government & Relations Director, Lewis & Roca, LLP

Jaime Molera, Superintendent of Public Instruction,Arizona Department of Education

William J. Post, President & CEO, APS

Gary Stuart, Treasurer, Arizona Board of Regents;Counsel to Jennings, Strouss & Salmon

Mary Walshok, Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of Extension,San Diego Division of Extended Studies in Public Programs,University of California San Diego

Rick Weddle, President and CEO, Greater Phoenix Economic Council

Keven Willey, Editorial Page Editor, The Arizona Republic

* Positions and titles as of date of interviews, Spring 2002.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the following people for their assistance:

With assistance from:

Karen Leland, Nielle McCammon, Cherylene Schick, Mary Jo Waits and Alice Willey, Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Karen Heard, Chalk Design

Ted Stratton, Moving Pictures

Arizona State University

Charles Arntzen

Dan Bivona

Colleen Brophy

Patrick Burkhart

Tom Callarman

Kathy Church

Scott Coleman

Michael Dorman

John Fowler

Ann Freudendahl

Dan Gilfillan

Nancy Gutierrez

Gail Hackett

Ben Huey

Rick Johnson

Michael Kozicki

Kathy Matt

Al Meyer

Mike Mobley

Jay Murphy

Tom Picraux

Al Poskanzer

Greg Raupp

Minerva Romero

Julia Rosen

Trevor Thornton

Tom Trotter

Tim Trumble

Ig Tsong

Neal Woodbury

Intel

Jeanne Forbis

Microlab

Dirk Bottesch

Morrison Institute for Public Policy conducts research which informs, advises, and assists Arizonans. A part of the School of Public Affairs (College of

Public Programs) at Arizona State University, the Institute is a bridge between the university and the community. Through a variety of publications

and forums, Morrison Institute shares research results with and provides services to public officials, private sector leaders, and community members

who shape public policy. A nonpartisan advisory board of leading Arizona business people, scholars, public officials, and public policy experts assists

Morrison Institute with its work. Morrison Institute was established in 1982 through a grant from Marvin and June Morrison of Gilbert, Arizona and

is supported by private and public funds and contract research.

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY

S c h o o l o f P u b l i c A f f a i r s / C o l l e g e o f P u b l i c P r o g r a m s / A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

APRIL 2003

PO Box 874405, Tempe, Ar izona 85287-4405 / (480) 965-4525 voice / (480) 965-9219 fax / www.morr isoninst i tute.org or www.asu.edu/copp/morr ison

SEEDS OF PROSPERITY - ASU · SEEDS OF PROSPERITY ... Nanotechnology, microscale medicine, virtual...

Documents

Transcript of SEEDS OF PROSPERITY - ASU · SEEDS OF PROSPERITY ... Nanotechnology, microscale medicine, virtual...